Association of Citizens for Summerland

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Council Refuses Referendum Request

Council has refused the Association's request for a referendum on the proposed golf resort. Mayor Johnston's reasons, in brief, are:
1. A referendum "would be non binding" and "Council could ignore the result of any referendum".
2. "The proposed development is designated a future growth area as per the current Official Community Plan"
3. The proposed development "is consistent with smart growth principles"

posted by tony cooke | Permanent Link

3 Comments:

  • Wow, the mayor really makes it easy to poke holes in his arguments. His lack of respect for this request makes me think that he's probably not taking the association very seriously.

    1. re: not binding
    Hmm....why couldn't they make it binding, or better yet, just honour the results on principle?

    2. re: "The proposed development is designated a future growth area as per the current Official Community Plan"
    This reminds me why any of these issues interested me in the first place -- the OCP process. In the second draft (pdf map), it talks about the sequence of development:

    "1-10 An extension to the boundaries of the UGA to include Future Growth Areas must be considered thrugh the Official Community Plan amendment procedure. Inclusion of Future Growth Areas into the Urban Growth Area will be reviewed at such time as the UGA is 75% developed. The review process with determine development priorities."

    Although I'm glad there is a nod to limiting sprawl until some ratio (75% seems too low) of infilling has taken place, the proposed urban growth areas and future growth areas in draft 2 make no sense to me. The urban growth area should only include existing neighbourhoods and perhaps the spaces between them that are already serviced with roads and other infrastructure. That would give us an accurate picture of the scope of existing development and opportunities for true infilling.

    Beyond that, the "future growth area" should be split into short (phase one -- maybe 10 years?) and long-term (phase two -- maybe 20 years) priorities. East Cartwright could be phase one for future growth -- it's close to town, non-ALR, and connects Deer Ridge to the rest of the community. Jersey Lands certainly shouldn't be "urban growth area" and probably shouldn't even be considered for short-term future growth. In this context, building Summerland's largest development (golf course) out past everthing else doesn't make any sense. It might be phase two future growth, but shouldn't these things be done in some rational sequence instead of leapfrogging over miles of undeveloped land (Cartwright)?

    3. re: The proposed development "is consistent with smart growth principles"
    Yeah, whatever. Using the Smart Growth label to justify this development can only be taken as a mockery of the process. Any idiot who bothers to pay attention to Smart Growth principles can see that this development is the opposite of Smart Growth. It is growth, and maybe it looks smart to those who stand to make a lot of money from it...but let's call a spade a spade -- this development is sprawl by every definition.

    By Blogger Jeremy, at 11:29 a.m.  

  • Great, clear thinking comments Jeremy. Can we persuade you to run for Council?

    By Blogger tony cooke, at 8:36 p.m.  

  • Thanks Tony, but there's no way for me to swing it right now. I do hope that there are some association members considering a run at council or the mayor's office, though.

    By Blogger Jeremy, at 9:36 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home